Just wondering, are those things not covered by law in the US (or does it vary from state to state)?

It varies from state to state. There are very few federal regulations regulating the storage of firearms. The only one I am aware of, and it's been so long I can't even be totally sure if its a federal or state law, is that if you are living with a person who is prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition, then it must be kept inaccessible to the prohibited party.

There have been movements pushing for safe storage laws, but I am, frankly, skeptical about them. If you're curious as to why, I will be happy to explain later but for now I want to try and answer some of the differences between the US and the UK, at least from a Yank perspective, as objectively as I can.

but I am fairly certain that you MUST keep you gun unloaded and dissembled in a gun safe, which must comply with certain specifications, when it's not in use.

Some states have that regulation, the above mentioned "Safe Storage Laws." California, Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York, I believe, are the only states that have them. All new firearms sold are required to come with a locking device and these locking devices can also be obtained at local police departments and through the National Shooting Sports Foundation cheap or, in some cases, free.

and also to check to see if you are an obvious nutter who shouldn't be let near a soft cushion never mind a firearm (obviously nutters do still get licenses, they aren't sending psychiatrists to your house, but maybe they should).

When purchasing a firearm from a dealer anywhere in the United States, you are required to fill out paperwork to run through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This is known as an ATF Form 4473. After you fill this out, the dealer calls the FBI and they run a check on your background for any disqualifying factors, such as felonies, disbarring misdemeanors, and whether or not you've been adjudicated mentally incompetent or defective. It usually takes approximately five minutes for them to find out whether or not you're a prohibited possessor. The feds will then either send back to the dealer a Go, No Go, or a Hold. Go and No Go are pretty well self-explanatory. A Hold means that something pinged which, while it wouldn't outright disqualify you, it does warrant further investigation. A Hold can only be effective for between four and five days while the FBI investigates further. If the investigation isn't complete within that time, then it falls to the dealer to decide whether or not to go ahead with the transfer. If the transfer goes through, but the investigation later turns up something that would disqualify you, then they will send law enforcement around to your home to take possession of the firearm.

If so that seems like MASSIVE oversight that should be addressed...none of those things imo would go against the right to bear arms, at least not in any unreasonable way.

Mmm...yes and no. Because firearm ownership is a protected constitutional right, you have to be able to have laws that would not violate that or your other rights. For example, earlier I said police inspections of your home would be a sticky thing legally. That's because choosing to exercise one right, your Second Amendment right, cannot exclude you from protections provided by another right, your Fourth Amendment right. The Fourth Amendment protects you from searches without a warrant for probable cause that a crime has been, or is about to be, committed. Treating the desire to own a firearm as grounds for a search constitutes a presumption of guilt and that is something that doesn't (often) fly in our criminal justice system. Some might try to argue that an inspection isn't a search, but it would be a requirement that we don't have when exercising any of our other rights and that, in itself, would render the law illegal.

I mean there's already some restrictions on that right in the US - for example it's pretty damn difficult to get hold of stuff like miniguns legally,

This is actually a fairly common misconception; it is actually fairly easy to get a hold of a minigun, it's just fuck all expensive. For this, I'll use your example of a minigun, which, I presume, you're talking about a GE M134 Minigun.

The first thing you'd need to do is actually locate one that was made prior to 1986. After that, you have to take it, fingerprint cards and two passport photos to a Class 3 dealer and fill out an ATF Form 4 and, if you're registering the firearm as an individual, a Form 5330.20 to prove you are a United States citizen. The dealer will then hold the weapon for you while the paperwork is processed.

The dealer will submit the paperwork and if all is clear, you'll then have to go get your Chief Law Enforcement Officer's signature stating that having the firearm won't violate any laws. This is largely a hold over from when the NFA was passed in 1934 and hadn't been updated after the introduction of the NICS system; and some CLEOs will refuse to sign off on the paperwork, even if having the firearm is legal just because they, personally, don't like them.

Remember when I said it was fuck you expensive? For every Class 3 item you purchase, it requires a $200 dollar tax stamp on top of the cost of the firearm. The last transferable GE 134 Minigun I saw would set you back $215,000 dollars, so if you can swing that, I think you can find the $200 dollars somewhere in the couch.

Some people yes, some people no. And the level of control varies person to person. For example, on this board regarding this topic, I am probably one of those that would land somewhere on the right (conservative) side of the bell curve while, I presume, most of the rest of the board would land somewhere on the left (liberal) side, and yet I am probably one of the most overall left-leaning people here, at least I was the last time I saw everyone posting their political compasses, so I try not to paint with too broad a brush when regarding firearm ownership.

I hope I've helped answer some of your questions.

Logged

"Fear my .45"

"If the liberties of the American people are ever destroyed, they will fall by the hands of the clergy" ~ Marquis De Lafayette

People should really stop claiming that getting automatic weapons in USA is expensive. 200 dollar tax stamp is not that much of money and there are cheaper automatic weapons than the Miniguns. For example, a lot of fully automatic MAC-10s are still available (and due to the way it has been built modifying it greatly is easy AND legal so you can, for example, find MAC-10 carbines that accept drum magazines from M/31 or PPSh.)

Same thing with the suppressors, people think those are illegal but actually in most states in USA you can own one as long as you pay another 200 dollars to ATF.

...And let's be honest, if you really use the gun a lot 200 bucks is not much. Bullets cost as well and people are willing to pay five times as much for scopes and other accessories. In fact the gun it self may cost more than 2000 dollars so another 10% to get a similar one that is fully automatic or has a suppressor ain't gonna matter much.

All that restriction does is stop people who can just barely afford a basic gun from legally buying suppressors or fully automatic guns.

Yep, you answered those pretty damn well. Regarding miniguns/gattling guns I was under the impression (and I think that impression came from an American "factual" TV show) that they required special licenses that were hard for individuals to get. Apparently a TV show was wrong, who'd have thought it huh.

As for hyperbole, yeah it's hyperbole to illustrate a point in as clear and obvious a fashion as possible so that people don't miss that point...you know, like a lot of satire and parody does. Remember the original Robocop? Or Starship Troopers? Or think of old newspaper political cartoons. Just because something is hyperbole does not mean it's automatically wrong and can just be dismissed which is what you did by not actually addressing the point of it - the fact that restrictions do exist on what kind of weapons civilians are allowed to own and where/how is the line drawn with certain people, or the government as a whole (and we all know the government certainly is a hole, thank you I'll be here all week...or at least until I finish typing this).

If you want a less exaggerated example, aren't full auto guns banned or at least more heavily restricted in a handful of states? I'm 99% sure suppressors are banned in some states (yes they're not a weapon in of themselves but still), and I think some ammo types are illegal/restricted too aren't they? Strictly speaking one could even argue that background checks (speaking of which, I'm sure the UK does background checks too but it was just that I know for certain that the fuzz do have a face-to-face meeting with you) and denying certain people a license is an infringement on the right to bear arms according to how the amendment is worded; I don't think it has any exemptions listed.

Obviously none of that means it should be an all or nothing situation, that's just the old false dichotomy fallacy, but all I'm saying is certain people bang on about the 2nd amendment anytime the gun debate crops up, like it's the word of God himself or something, and infringing on that right/amendment etc etc. But it's already been infringed to varying degrees in some shape or form for years and most people seem to accept it (I'm sure some don't mind you) and are ok with it as they understand it can't be a free for all where anything goes. I just don't understand where the cut-off point is in their mind when they start so feverishly ranting about the constitution.

But anyway this post is more than long enough already. Cheers for your explanations and just a final thought: does anyone else think maybe all gun laws should be federal and not up to each individual state? Having them be different from state to state seems like there'd be some obvious ways round your own state's laws.

Oh, didn't read the last post properly about suppressors not being illegal in some states. But putting an extra tax on them is still arguably a restriction and possibly even an infringement on the 2nd amendment depending on how you look at it so I don't think my mentioning them is 100% irrelevant.

The thing is that all the silly gun laws in USA boil down to one point: 2nd Amendment.

It stops the Fed and the states from making any really restrictive gun laws OR from making the kinds of effective laws that would restrict who gets a gun and who doesn't. For all the complaints about the "Assault weapon ban" it is one of the few kinds of restrictions USA can make. Same goes for "California legal" rifles:

Does that stock look silly? That's because California managed to pass a law that restricted some features in guns and the companies simply made awkward guns that bypass the restrictions.

... does anyone else think maybe all gun laws should be federal and not up to each individual state? Having them be different from state to state seems like there'd be some obvious ways round your own state's laws.

I've given it some thought and I'd have to answer a qualified no.

Logged

The difference between 0 and 1 is infinite. The difference between 1 and a million is a matter of degree. - Zack Johnson

Quote from: davedan board=pg thread=6573 post=218058 time=1286247542

I'll stop eating beef lamb and pork the same day they start letting me eat vegetarians.

Yep, you answered those pretty damn well. Regarding miniguns/gattling guns I was under the impression (and I think that impression came from an American "factual" TV show) that they required special licenses that were hard for individuals to get. Apparently a TV show was wrong, who'd have thought it huh.

As for hyperbole, yeah it's hyperbole to illustrate a point in as clear and obvious a fashion as possible so that people don't miss that point...you know, like a lot of satire and parody does. Remember the original Robocop? Or Starship Troopers? Or think of old newspaper political cartoons. Just because something is hyperbole does not mean it's automatically wrong and can just be dismissed which is what you did by not actually addressing the point of it - the fact that restrictions do exist on what kind of weapons civilians are allowed to own and where/how is the line drawn with certain people, or the government as a whole (and we all know the government certainly is a hole, thank you I'll be here all week...or at least until I finish typing this).

The reason I dismissed the nuclear weapon analogy is because I've heard it so many times that if I had been paid a quarter per encounter, I could fund my own presidential campaign. My gripe with it is that it misses the basic idea for why the Second Amendment was adopted.

Judging from your questions and comments, I am working on the presumption that you were born and live within the United Kingdom so I'm not sure how much school history classes touch on the war between the United States and the United Kingdom from 1775 to 1783. But over here, it is an extremely romanticized period of our history and was the birth of our nation. One of the leading factors that contributed to it was what became known as the Powder Alarm in which British forces seized black powder from a colonial magazine. Rumors spread that people had been killed during that incident, and not long afterward came the Battles of Lexington and Concord.

After that, the Second Amendment was adopted to help ensure that Americans have the proper means of defending themselves against a foreign power or, as President James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers No. 46, their own standing army or government should that need arise. This meant ensuring that the citizens could bring to bear force of arms equal to that of their own army, including cannons and privately owned merchant vessels that would often carry roughly equal armament as naval vessels. Privateers, for example, were legal pirates sailing heavily armed vessels that were meant to attack merchant and naval vessels of other nations.

Nuclear weapons, on the other hand, would not fall under the category of "arms" as understood pertaining to the Second Amendment because they are not made with the intention of defense against an aggressive nation. They are kept as a deterrent, the effectiveness of which is at best debatable, and to utterly destroy a nation's ability to make war and their will to fight. They are weapons of mass destruction, not arms bearable by individuals.

A more fitting question would be to ask about ownership of a tank.

The answer to that is...it is, in fact, legal for a private citizen to own a tank in the United States. You can even drive it around town, provided it has been modified to be street legal. You can even have the main cannon be functional, provided it is registered and you go through the steps to obtain your Destructive Device permit and can afford a $200 dollar tax stamp per round.

If you want a less exaggerated example, aren't full auto guns banned or at least more heavily restricted in a handful of states?

Yes, they are. In some states by law, and in some counties they are de facto banned due to Chief Law Enforcement Officers refusing to sign off on the paperwork. You also have to notify the ATF if you want to transport a Title 2 (AKA Class 3) item out of state.

I'm 99% sure suppressors are banned in some states (yes they're not a weapon in of themselves but still),

No, that's a fair assessment. Suppressors are banned in, I believe, 9 or 10 states and some others have further restrictions on their use. To be able to get one, you have to go through the same processes as you would to purchase a machine gun, including the $200 dollar tax stamp.

Depending on the state, yes, they are. For example, New Jersey has a ban on expanding ammunition (hollow points) because they call them "cop killer" rounds. The irony to that, actually, is that hollow point and expanding ammunition is actually much safer to use in a defensive situation because it is less likely to penetrate barriers or go through your attacker and hit a bystander. And they're also far less likely to be able to penetrate through police issue body armor.

Strictly speaking one could even argue that background checks (speaking of which, I'm sure the UK does background checks too but it was just that I know for certain that the fuzz do have a face-to-face meeting with you) and denying certain people a license is an infringement on the right to bear arms according to how the amendment is worded; I don't think it has any exemptions listed.

Fun fact, the Second Amendment is the only one in the constitution that explicitly has the words "shall not be infringed" in it.

Obviously none of that means it should be an all or nothing situation, that's just the old false dichotomy fallacy, but all I'm saying is certain people bang on about the 2nd amendment anytime the gun debate crops up, like it's the word of God himself or something, and infringing on that right/amendment etc etc. But it's already been infringed to varying degrees in some shape or form for years and most people seem to accept it (I'm sure some don't mind you) and are ok with it as they understand it can't be a free for all where anything goes.

[cynic]You'd be amazed what people would accept as long as they get to watch the Super Bowl. Horray for bread and circuses. [/cynic]

I just don't understand where the cut-off point is in their mind when they start so feverishly ranting about the constitution.

Again, I believe it all depends on the person, even those of us at the extreme end vary. Some will go foam-at-mouth-Alex-Jones on the subject while others can say "I don't believe there should be restrictions on the Second Amendment because..." It really just depends on who you ask, I suppose.

But anyway this post is more than long enough already. Cheers for your explanations

You're welcome.

But I also want to apologize for neglecting to mention that, when purchasing or transferring a firearm from a private citizen, you are not required on a federal level to have a background check performed for the transaction. However, if the seller has reasonable cause to believe that the buyer would be barred from owning a firearm, they are prohibited from completing the sale. There are other laws regarding this, which I will be happy to explain if you would like.

and just a final thought: does anyone else think maybe all gun laws should be federal and not up to each individual state? Having them be different from state to state seems like there'd be some obvious ways round your own state's laws.

The idea has an appeal on some level but to a limited degree. The only thing I would like to see at the federal level would be a uniform standard for obtaining a concealed carry license as well as laws regulating the concealed carry of weapons and ensuring that all states recognize as valid the licenses of other states in the same manner as they would a drivers license. What we have currently is a Frankenstein's monster of a lurching, lumbering mass of stitched together laws that have served to trap otherwise innocent, if ignorant, people because what was perfectly legal in one city/county/state can suddenly become illegal the second you cross an invisible line in the dirt.

But, aside from the CCW issue, I'm not sure if much else should be handled at that level.

Logged

"Fear my .45"

"If the liberties of the American people are ever destroyed, they will fall by the hands of the clergy" ~ Marquis De Lafayette

I'm not sure what else could be handled at the federal level. You have states of varying size with varying population densities and to be honest varying cultures. To try and adopt a one size fits all policy would be doomed.

Logged

The difference between 0 and 1 is infinite. The difference between 1 and a million is a matter of degree. - Zack Johnson

Quote from: davedan board=pg thread=6573 post=218058 time=1286247542

I'll stop eating beef lamb and pork the same day they start letting me eat vegetarians.

If you have a Remington Model 700, or a number of other Remington firearms, recently unsealed documents reveal that the company has for 70 years known about a design flaw in the trigger that can cause it to fire even when the trigger is not touched.

The company has agreed to do a free retrofit on these firearms as part of the settlement of a lawsuit. If you own one of the affected firearms, see the link above to learn how you can make a claim as part of a class-action lawsuit to get this free trigger change and make your gun safe.

Logged

Quote from: Jordan Duram

It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

Quote

Be weird, cause normal is boring.

Quote

From my rotting body, flowers will grow and I am in them and that is eternity.

b) They knew about this for decades?! They could have just gone "Let's fix this in the future guns and market it as an improvement" and that would have saved a lot of lives.

But that would have cost them money. Cheaper to just keep using the same trigger design.

Logged

Quote from: Jordan Duram

It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

Quote

Be weird, cause normal is boring.

Quote

From my rotting body, flowers will grow and I am in them and that is eternity.

Never rely on the safety, and always keep your guns unloaded when in storage or in transit. Especially true of longarms (pistols, of course, are used in Concealed-Carry, but safety rules still apply).

And check the chamber to be sure there isn't a bullet in there, and, in general, always assume it's loaded until you have personally verified that it isn't.

Logged

Quote from: Jordan Duram

It doesn't concern you, Sister, that kind of absolutist view of the universe? Right and wrong determined solely by a single all-knowing, all powerful being whose judgment cannot be questioned and in whose name the most horrendous acts can be sanctioned without appeal?

Quote

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

Quote

Be weird, cause normal is boring.

Quote

From my rotting body, flowers will grow and I am in them and that is eternity.